German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against new nuclear power

I see it here too.. did you read the comments on that post? Those turbines were to be dismantled in one way or another due to their age, and the permit to mine coal in that place was given 15 years ago.

I also wonder about the nuclear fanboyism. Is it because techbros? Is it astroturfing? Or do really so many people fall for the various websites of the nuclear industry you find online? I don't know what it is, but it is suspicious. There seem to be many more (vocal) fans of nuclear reactors than fans for renewable energy sources.

So what about nuclear waste? I am opposed to nuclear energy because of all the reasons you pointed out, but also because we collectively decided to dump the waste somewhere underground where they will go on radiating for a few eternities more. Do you know if this bullshit or if that's a true concern?

Great post and nice to see those 4th gen plants mentioned including the current project development state. Those plants were always a top comment as 'the solution' in discussions on Reddit. Just build 4th gen or molten salt or fusion - energy problems solved with just a few keystrokes.

Posts explaining the problems or the current state of those projects often ended up in flames.

Wut? Your delusion is incredible!

So you think the weather is always the same in all of Europe? Because it doesn't matter, if it is cloudy or snowy in one part of the continent, if other regions have sunshine and wind at the same time. On such a scale, wheatger is not that much of a deal. Especially if you have storage mediums and other sources like gas.

It is not our favorite energy source anymore, the plan is to get rid of themynot build more of them. Yes, there was an increase last year, but that was related to the gas situation with russia.

Northrine Westphalia just dumped the minium required distance for wind turbines, so we will see a huge boost of them (hopefully)

Drought is not as much a problem in Germany as it is on the southern states like France and Spain, but groundwater is going down. Everywhere. And like OP said, France had to limit the output of their reactors due to water shortages.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-13/france-cuts-nuclear-output-as-heat-triggers-water-restrictions

Wind and solar has to be the main focus as long as nuclear power is reliant on clean and sufficient water.

Of you want to know more, there is a separate wiki article just related to the European drought of 2023.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_European_drought

I have no idea and coal sucks and is the result of intense lobbying and corrupt politicians being bought for pennies on the dollar for the last 25 years.

The point isn't the water usage of nuclear power, since most of it is evaporated and returned to the cycle, so I'd be surprised if it's worse than coal in terms of actual consumption. However you need water in large quantities and the correct temperatures to be able to use it for cooling on nuclear.

If there is no water or not enough water of sufficient temperatures, then you can't cool the plant. It's simple as that.

Droughts overall are horrible for Europe just as much as anywhere else. We're losing tons of valuable topsoil, forrests are dying contributing to the continual errosion. All this could lead to salination and eventual death of farmland. Crop yields are unpredictable. No country on this planet can exist for any prolonged period of time with droughts, unless it can import everything it can't produce itself from elsewhere.

Water usage is generally a huge issue in Germany. Farmers take out far, far more than they're allotted already and there's almost no oversight. Large cities like Frankfurt am Main are pulling in water from surrounding areas, leaving them dry. And this isn't even touching on the basically free use of water for our industries at large. It's a really bad situation.

The only point where renewables would "rely" on water beyond their construction processes is either water generated power itself or energy storage (which comes down to the same).

Coal power plants have about 45% energy efficency. Liginte about 30-35%, Nuclear plants also about 30-35%. All the other energy ends up using water to cool it away.

So a 1 GW nuclear plant is putting about 2 GW of heat into the water. A lignite plant the same. A 1 GW coal power plant is only putting about 1.25 GW of heat into water.

But again the problem is the false comparison being made here. The alternative to nuclear isnt coal. the alternative is renewables in conjunction with storage technologies and smarter grid management with demand sheduling.

Edit: wow nuclear shills now downvoting basic physics.

Redditors are unbelievably brainwashed in this topic, and a lot of Redditors moved over to Lemmy. I have dragged this metaphor to water countless times before, and when I suggest that they could consider drinking, they just arrogantly declare that I don't understand the facts around liquids, that I don't have any basis for my claims that they should drink it, and that by arguing that people should drink more water, I somehow supporting Coca-Cola.

It's also common knowledge that the more often you build something, the lower its price tends to go as that knowledge spreads. It's part of the reason it's so expensive to build trains in the US and so cheap in South Korea and Spain.

The astroturf campaign from reddit obviously has arrived on lemmy lately

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by these. Can you expand on that? (I mostly mean the centralization, but also looking for clarity on what you mean by security)

You can have this copy/paste from like 5 minutes of googling. You can also run your own study yourself by just googling "average kwh price nuclear" and "average kwh price wind" and see how it looks. You can also google "average co2 eq emissions total lifetime nuclear" and likewise for wind/solar PV. This is extremely simple stuff, guys. I am basically saying, "lentils are cheaper than steak" and you're asking for citations.

2022 Electricity ATB Technologies and Data Overview, annual technology baseline:

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

Wow look isn't it crazy how nuclear is the most expensive one?

Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report: "Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build. When you factor it all in, you're looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant."

Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power, published in nature energy: "We find that larger-scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to associate with significantly lower carbon emissions while renewables do. "

The difference between my comment and a COVID denial comment is that if you googled covid denial arguments you’d find that 99.999% of results refute their claims. If you do the same for my claims, you’ll find the exact same sources that I used to make my arguments on the top page of the search results. It’s not the same.

Also solar panel manufacturing is a very intense process with a lot of carbon impact

The carbon impact mostly is energy used in production. So it's high when you produce solar panels powered by shitty coal plants and basically non-existent when you have build them once and are constructing replacements with solar energy. (The same is true for nuclear btw and also often completely misrepresented in discussion. Nuclear plants in a country full of nuclear plants have a much lower carbon footprint. That's not some technological or scaling effect as often claimed but the simple fact of building the reactor and enriching the fuel with energy already green)

A 100% renewable grid would need a lot of batteries and that too could drive the price up

Actually no. The grid would need batteries (but also alternatives like capacitors or fly-wheels) for short-term stabilisation, but the amount is limited. The grid also need long-term storage but here batteries are completely inadequate. Also the requirements for batteries are usually misrepresented. No, we don't neen some bullshit Lithium-ion batteries or similar stuff requiring rare earths and other rare ressources. Those are used in handhelds where energy density is the main concern. I can perfectly build a stationary grid battery cheaply and without rare ressources as nobody cares if that building-sized installation is 5% bigger and 30% heavier than a build with lithium-ion batteries and also gets 20° hotter in operation... because it's not a handheld.

Case in point: One of the very first things that happened in Germany the moment the new government was sworn in and long before they could actually do anything: energy companies started installing the first battery-based storage units as they now were no longer intentionally sabotaged in creating storage infrastructure for renewables. What did they use? Car battereis. Used ones that were already deposed. Dirt cheap for costs barely above the recycling value. Because the requirements in grid stabilisation and short-term storage are indeed completely different that in cars (again: energy densitiy vs. low price and car batteries with only 60% of their capacity left were completely okay for that job).

Let's not forget distributed grids reliant on wind can't tolerate local drops in energy output so you need to set up a zillion little LNG plants that are even less efficient than big ones

Edit: or I guess batteries that haven't been invented yet but that's sure not how the problem is solved most places these days

Here a paper on the base load.

Also solar panels power amortization time is around a year, depending on cell chemistry, production and installation location.

Demand sheduling.

The current grid is run on the idea that we ramp up power plants until the current demand is met.

The future will be to make the demand flexible and follow the availability. Typical example is when to charge a car battery, but it also goes for heating and cooling applications, using power to x converters, like hydrogen production, sheduling household appliances like washing machines and industrial processes.

Doing so we can close the gap between real baseload and available renewable supply, which in turns reduces the amount of storage needed.

I wrote a larger comment addressing this, but honestly, you’d be better just googling it. It’s eminently plausible, it’s the industry consensus. Here’s a Wikipedia link for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

Wind tends to be higher at night (at least here in Texas), so solar and wind are good complements. The biggest issue here is in the summer right after the sun sets, but that just means having enough battery storage for a couple hours for temps to start dropping. But wind/solar are still cheaper after including storage for that amount of time by far compared to new nuclear or new fossil fuels. Only existing facilities have a comparable per kWh cost when compared to new solar/wind + storage. Even if you quadrupled the storage, it would still be cheaper than new nuclear and comparable to existing nuclear iirc. Granted cost of storage partly depends on what storage options are viable locally for small grids.

Is PV common at commercial scale solar?

I wrote a larger comment addressing this, but honestly, you’d be better just googling it. It’s eminently plausible, it’s the industry consensus. Here’s a Wikipedia link for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

Thanks for the question. Firstly, most places have a power grid which is far larger than their locality. For example, the southeastern United States is connected to a single big grid which connects every smaller sub-grid east of the Rocky Mountains. This means that a home in Florida can be powered all the way from the Bath County pumped-storage facility in Virginia, the second largest such facility in the US.

Hydroelectricity can also be generated by rivers, which are commonly used in lowland areas, and geothermal is also viable at any time of the day. Biomass is also an option, though it’s the last resort really, although as long as it’s responsibly managed, it can be nearly carbon neutral.

There are also alternatives to pumped storage, lots of them. Compressed air, thermal storage, and hydrogen are a few examples just off the top of my head, though I’m sure there are many more. Pumped storage is just very efficient and cheap, so if we can plausibly do it, it should be the first choice. And if it can’t be done somewhere, then we should connect that place to somewhere which can!

…which is hugely worse for nuclear? What is your point?

Nuclear power plants require eye watering amounts of concrete.

They require continuous (and ever-increasing) extraction of fissile matter such as uranium ore (a limited resource, by the way - if we used nuclear power instead of fossil fuels we would run out pretty quickly, too, all things considered).

Nuclear power also consumes (and irradiates) vast quantities of water.

They are huge nightmares for biodiversity as they are massive projects usually flattening large swathes of land.

They produce waste which is not only irradiated and hazardous but also a major security risk, so it has to be safeguarded… and/or sealed into a hole in the ground where it will remain a risk for years to come.

The building projects themselves are astronomical in scale and require huge quantities of materials to be shipped by fleets and fleets of trucks followed by a lot of industrial work. Then in a couple of decades the site has to be decommissioned which is even more work.

Estimates for the lifetime emissions (extraction, commission, operation, etc.) CO2EQ of nuclear power are commonly thought to be between 60-100g per kWh. Solar power is somewhere in the region of 20-40g per kWh, and wind is somewhere around 10-20g per kWh.

So again, no, nuclear energy is not what we want. Support ONLY renewables. Nuclear power is wasteful.

I’m really glad to hear it, thanks for being open to changing your perspective when you are presented with new information. It’s a quality which is sadly rare these days it seems!

That's a really bad take. Funds should be focused where they're most effective at transitioning to clean energy.

Would you like to elaborate? Renewables are a much better power source than nuclear in every single way that matters. They’re better for the environment, cheaper, lower emissions and are faster to commission. Every $1 spent on nuclear power is $1 stolen from renewables.

I’m on my phone, dude, I’m not gonna juggle a dozen sources on this tiny screen and crappy keyboard just to prove you wrong, you’re more than capable of using Google to find the facts yourself. I challenge you to prove me wrong. You can even cite some hilariously biased source like World Forum of Nuclear Investor Funds or something, those ones are always fun because they’re like “oh with our super cool advanced new nuclear reactor that doesn’t exist, it’s as good as solar or wind for almost 150% of the cost!! :)”

Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels.

This claim is patently false.

Sorry, but this comment is so full of false information.

If you are able to read German or use a translator I can recommend this interview where the expert explains everything and goes into the the details.

https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Deutschland-ist-kein-Strombettler-erklaert-Bruno-Burger-von-Energy-Charts-im-Klima-Labor-article24357979.html

Claiming that Germany is fucked after shutting down nuclear for good is repeating the talking points from the far right here. Don't be that guy.

Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels.

That's completely false.

responsible for like 1/8 of Germany's electrical production

More like 2-3%

it wasn't a cost decision

Not exclusively, but the high price of nuclear is one of the main points in the decision

the graph at the top shows the growth in Germany's installed wind capacity in Germany leveling off

Because the graph stops in 2022. The growth now is accelerating and even more so for solar power which OP conveniently does not show us

https://strom-report.com/photovoltaik/

Given this thread is about new nuclear, I'm not sure why you are making up beliefs about what someone else in the thread believes. Personally a fan of old nuclear plants since their biggest expense (financial and likely ecological) is making them, so keeping them running is good as long as we are relying on fossil fuels.

is it possible they're running into some limits on how much they can generate efficiently that way?

Why just speculate on it while insinuation someone is wrong about something when you could look it up? From what I can gather, it looks like administration/licensing delays, court cases, and rules limiting how close they can be to residential buildings (apparently 10 times the height of the turbine) are the main contributors to the slowdown.

Also, solar is still growing more quickly and 2023 is having quicker growth in wind than last year (which was itself an increase from the previous year), so the trend being shown may already be outdated. Granted, inflation apparently are an issue now (not when the slowdown happened, but now as the rate of wind installation is increasing). And the rate of increase isn't enough imo, but building new nuclear instead of using the same resources to build solar or wind at this point means relying more on fossil fuels.

I’d happily sit here and punch holes in it if I thought you were actually open to an argument

If you had just said this and stopped writing then you'd have saved yourself time and embarrassment. I can dunk anytime, anywhere on whatever arguments you dream up, because definitionally if you're arguing with me about this then you have no idea what you're talking about. It's a fool-in-a-barrel type of situation, really.

Anyways, enough merry-making, to the meat of your comment:

Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants... it wasn’t a cost decision, it was a bullshit anti-nuclear one

Nuclear power has huge cost implications, economically and politically, which make it less viable. If Germany had built renewables instead of nuclear, would they have turned off the renewables that were producing the cheapest, cleanest energy ever known, with zero fuel costs and minimal maintenance costs? You make my argument for me.

The decommissioning of the german nuclear power plants was planned in 2011 because nuclear is a waste of resources. German scientists know this as well as I do. You're the one arguing with them.

"Nuclear energy is also often more expensive than wind and solar power, there are no longer any real advantages with nuclear energy.” - Volker Quaschning, a professor of renewable energy at the Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin. “Nuclear power plants are a hindrance to the energy transition. They are not able to run in stop-and-go mode and cannot really compensate for power fluctuations that arise when using solar and wind energy. With Germany looking to expand solar and wind power very rapidly over the next few years, now is a good time to shut down nuclear reactors to make way for renewable energy,” he said.

“In the German context, the phase-out of nuclear energy is good for the climate in the long term. It provides investment certainty for renewable energy; renewables will be much faster, cheaper and safer than expansion of nuclear energy,” - Niklas Höhne, a professor the mitigation of greenhouse gases at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

...and replaced them with fossil fuels

I think you're referring to the emergency recommissioning of German coal power plants in response to Russian gas being held hostage over the Ukraine war? It's not like they went "meh fuck the climate lol lets just turn off nuclear and put on the old coal burner for old time's sake".

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d80WT/4/

Really the entire goal should be both renewables and nuclear. Nuclear provides a reliable baseline that isn't dependent on weather conditions, is incredibly safe, and will last a long time at the cost of large upfront construction costs. Renewables are great for main power generation and can be used for small scale or large scale power generation and built quickly, but they need the weather to be optimal to generate optimal power. They also need to be mantained and replaced more often, which can be covered by that baseline nuclear provides. Since we don't have advanced enough power storage to use renewables exclusively due to their drawbacks, nuclear would be great for replacing coal and oil power plants to supply it when the renewables aren't able to do all of the work.

I would love to say we can build renewables and nuclear. But let's look at the actual reality: Not only are most countries with a nuclear plan lacking proper amounts of renewables (because for more than a decade an anti-renewable streak was part of nuclear lobbyism - see the amount of people here or anywhere else hallucinating about "expensive renewables" when their own model of electrity generation needs those renewables (and even some storage) to be viable), it's even worse. Most of these countries aren't even able to build nuclear on the proper scale they would need.

So no, there is no technical reason we can't build both.

But real-world experience right now shows us that most can't even get the proper build-up of nuclear alone done. Explaining to their heavily desinformed voters why they need to build massive capacities and also need to build even bigger amounts of renewables seems to be indeed impossible right now.

The other thing is time frame. If the already agreed upon climate goals give you a remaining co2 budget for another 6 or so years, you can indeed not start building nuclear now. That would have been a wonderful idea a decade or even longer ago.

There is actually only one undisputable thing we need to do right now: build up renewables and massively so. To stretch out the remaining budget (via constantly reducing CO2 emission quickly) to 1-2 decades and use that time to a) either build up storage and infrastructure or nuclear base load. The difference is that the infrastructure and storage can be build in steps alongside renewables while the nuclear base load would need to start today. And most countries seem unable to do it, with the deciding factor being costs. Costs they would also mostly need to pay now in advance.

In reality we can't build nuclear at all since we will have no water. Ask the French if you need details...

Yes, nuclear taking too long to build is not argument, it just means we should have started building them already.

If that's your take why is exactly nobody doing it? Oh, yeah. Because nobody has a clue how to actually pay the massive (and mostly paid in advance) costs.

Yet a lot of countries are proudly planning to build nuclear soon™ instead of those silly renewables, when what they actually would need to do is building much more nuclear than they are planning right now while also building massive amounts of renewables.

You are not actually wrong. Building more nuclear right now is an option. Building-up storage and infrastructure instead is the other viable one. Building massive amounts of renewables is needed in both cases.

The moment you show me countries starting nuclear in proper amounts right now, while also building and planning the needed increase in renewables alongside I will cheer for them. (For reference: energy demand increasing by a factor of at least 2,5 with 35% production capacity needed for a solid base load means your minimal goal for nuclear capacities right now should be 100% of todays demand...)

But as basically no country seems to be able to manage that investment the only option is storage and infrastructure. Is it costing the same in the end? Maybe? Probably? We don't know actually as decade long predictions for evolving technologies are not that precise (just look at the cost development of solar in the last decade for example). We know however that this is a constant investment over the same time renewables are build up to provide 100% coverage (PS: the actual numbers would be 115% to 125% btw... based on (regional) diversification of renewables and calculating losses through long-term storage).

Again: I'm not against building nuclear (and renewables!) right now, if that's your plan. I am however very much about the bullshit that is going on right now, where it's more important to show how smart you are by building some nuclear capacity (with the math not adding up at all) while laughing about others building renewables and spouting bullshit how it's just a scam to burn fossil fues forever.

Contrary to the popular narrative between building up renewables and storage and building just some nuclear capacities and some token renewables -if at all- it's not the former countries that are running on ideology with no actual real world plan.

As already said above: I totally support France' plan for 14 new reactors build until 2050, with a lot of renewable build-up at the same time. Because that's a workable plan. But that they already have problems publically justifying the bare minimum requirement of 14 reactors and the renewable up-build is a symptom of a larger problem. And basically every other country planning new nuclear power right now isn't even close to this scale and just living in a fairy tale world... or just providing an token effort while hoping for other bigger countries to solve the issue for them in the end.

Yeah, that's one of the most funny things to me in this debate. People are calling of all kind of radical measures to combat climate change, but when it comes to nuclear power somehow "too expensive" is a valid argument.

China is building new nuclear plants, but they are building way more coal plants as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/29/china-coal-plants-climate-goals-carbon

Yes pouring down money on a technology, that at best can help us mitigate emissions in 20 years, instead of investing it in a scaleable and cheaper technology now (wind, solar) is a great and reasonable strategy...

And that is entirely ignoring the debate abou the safety and waste issue of nuclear power.

By the time countries that could have built nuclear power plants would complete them, they will have collectively burnt enough coal and gas to doom humankind.

So: indeed, the world leaders didn't try seriously.

You could also channel the effort into renewable energy and the the reward would be greater and faster achieved.

Yes, that is exactly the nuclear motto: It's too late to match any climate goal with nuclear power not already starting counstruction many years ago... so let's say "fuck climate goals and stop trying" and start building nuclear anyway, because it's really cool and in 20-30 years it might solve our 10 year problem of remaining co2 budgets.

That's a bad take. Germany is saying it's too late for decades. If not for people like you, they would already have nuclear up and running.

China has a supply chain for nuclear. it's doable.

(China and nuclear in the same comment, here they come)

And Germany can buy renewable energy from the Danish in thr North Sea

For largely the same reasons. It's a hard sell to a mining town to stop being a mining town.

The criticism is extraordinarily simple and justified.

Which is better, Renewables and Nuclear or Renewables and Fossil Fuels?

Germany could have had an almost entirely fossil free grid by now, but instead they chose renewables & fossil fuels.

How are renewables more responsive to changes in demand? I don’t know how to make the sun shine brighter or the wind blow harder. That seems like one of the weakest points for the case. And how much much safer are they as a function of unit of power generated?

In any case the argument between renewables or nuclear baffles me. Both are, in my view at least, an improvement over our current primary fossil fuel power generation systems.

Edit: I mistyped fossil as fissile, which while funny undercut my sentiment.

You forgot:

• Not able to provide energy during the night/calm days
• Not energy dense - require enormous amount of land that can be put to better use
• Rely on battery storage - huge fire and explosion hazard
• Need to be replaced and serviced much more often - the lack of density means that repair and maintenance crew have a lot of ground to cover
• Energy output wildly fluctuates due to weather conditions.

Renewables have their place, but they cannot sustain the entire grid. At this point, going all in on renewables means either prolonging fossil fuel usage, or condemning vast swaths of the population to brownouts and energy poverty.

(I am German, so please excuse my grammar mistakes. If you are a German, too, the humanist party has a great position paper on nuclear energy: https://www.pdh.eu/programmatik/kernenergie/)

While reading your list, several points stood out for me.

• Cheaper

I assume you are talking about the inherent costs of the technology, but that is not where the costs come from. Nuclear power plants are not mass produced and there is constantly changing regulation. The petrol lobby is partly to blame for that, as they have a strong interest in making building nuclear power plants difficult and expensive. https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/ https://progress.institute/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/

• Faster to provision

https://www.blog.geoffrussell.com.au/post/nuclear-may-or-may-not-be-expensive-but-it-s-much-faster-to-build-than-renewables

Additionally, the low hanging fruits (the places that can easily be used for windparks) were already picked in Germany. It's becoming more and more difficult to find more places where windparks can be built.

• Less environmentally damaging

That stood out as especially weird. How did you come to that conclusion? If you are referring to nuclear waste: "Nuclear power causes least damage to the environment, finds systematic survey" https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environment-systematic-survey.html

"Why I Don’t Worry About Nuclear Waste" https://archive.ph/ZJQCj or, if you prefer some informational tweets by the same author: https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1550148385931513856.

Last but not least, I highly recommend this book (I've read it, but it's German): "Atommüll - Ungelöstes, unlösbares Problem ?: Technisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Aspekte der Endlagerung hochaktiven Atommülls. Ein Versuch zur Versachlichung der Debatte." https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/B09JX2ZRB3/

Also, take into account the land usage.

• Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel

Non-issue. Nuclear fuel is virtually inexhaustible and will last us literally until the sun explodes. https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/nuclear-fission-fuel-is-inexhaustible/1257

https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html

You might also be interested in the discussion on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36744699

Nuclear engineer here. I did a similar write-up (gratuitously leveraging GNU Units) since most people don't seem to know this fact about fission breeder reactors. I added some other references at the bottom of people pointing this out throughout nuclear fission's history. https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html In addition to the OP, it's also worth mentioning that you can breed with slow (aka 'thermal') neutrons as well as fast ones, you just have to use the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle to do so.

• Decentralised

Haven't you heard about small modular reactors (SMR)? One prominent company is Oklo (named after the natural nuclear reactor), another is Nuscale https://www.nuscalepower.com.

Also, we have vessels that are powered by nuclear reactors since several decades.

• Much, much safer

I assumed the data was well known: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh With newer designs ("walk-away safety") the nuclear death rate will likely continue to fall.

• Much easier to maintain

I tend to agree here. My main argument against nuclear power is the ongoing competence crisis. We need people that can maintain these plants for decades, but education and scientific literacy are in decline, while ideologies and social conflicts are on the rise. That is not a good environment for radioactive material with malicious use cases.

• More reliable

Could you elaborate?

• Much more responsive to changes in energy demands

How? Solar and wind have fluctuating production. One main challenge with solar is to get rid of excess electricity quickly, before it damages the grid. Germany already PAYS other countries to use their electric power on sunny days (i. e. the electricity cost becomes negative). That problem will become much worse. Plus, when it is sunny in Germany, it is likely sunny in surrounding countries, too, so they will have the same problem. There is a great talk by Hans-Werner Sinn touching this topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5trsBP9Cn4, see 23:04).

I am not favoring nuclear energy, btw.

Decentralised

I was rummaging this is probably the main reason for which they are pushed back in an excessively popular narrative in favour of nuclear: of course it is way harder to exercise capitalism when you can't centralize power and control, with renewables instead it could probably only exist a form of cooperative enterprise with the business of managing the energy production, immagine the loath of some individuals even acknowledging some utterly leftist term such as "cooperative" even exists, let alone even works. Better.

Can I follow a particular user? I just want Blake energy in my life.

Why would anyone waste money on the worse option?

Why do people have diverse stock portfolios?

Hedging and diversification is important. Unforseen consequences and unknown future conditions can screw up your long term plans for 100% renewables. The more diverse our energy portfolio is, the unknowns become easier to weather.

That is the answer for why we build and research something that is more expensive and may divert resources away from better options. To argue that there is literally no place for energy development other than purely renewable is a difficult position to defend.

Your sandwich analogy is lacking because we're talking about far future consequences of our decision. Maybe you plan to eat the sandwich a week from today. Which do you buy? You don't have enough information to determine which will be better in a week. Do you pick the chain store's because it's full of preservatives? Do you decide to buy both in case one of them gets moldy just to make sure you have anything to eat?

The consequences of developing or not developing potential viable solutions to energy requirements can be far reaching. Completely dismissing alternative options is just not rational.

That's nothing but propaganda, sorry. All your points are completely wrong.

Tell me how much energy it provides during night and during winter. Thats's why. Coal plant produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power plant. And that feared CO2 too.

Silverseren: Germany made a foolish choice shutting down their nukes

Blake: Renewables are a deli sandwich

The room: ...?

Huh, interesting how you resort to low key insult me right away - I guess they didn't teach you any manners.

At any rate, "look at the past X years trend" is not a useful metric when the current trend is different. In fact, a bunch of laws was just passed to accelerate the further installation of wind turbines. And moreover, what this graphic shows how the capacities have tripled in 14 years. So instead of meming let me make my point clear: I think OP is missing somthing.

Confidentlyincorrect